3 ms·

Wolfram does offer an interesting alternative to viewing the universe as a manifold with a tensor (the GR view). He believes it's a graph with computational rul

Wolfram does offer an interesting alternative to viewing the universe as a manifold with a tensor (the GR view). He believes it's a graph with computational rules. Are they the same? Mathematically, manifolds have a clear notion of dimension. This affects things like the inverse square rule. Wolfram's view of the ruliad, an evolving graph with rules, does bring up the question of dimension. But at the end of the day he needs to make a concrete prediction that differs than the current view in order to have people devote a lot of time studying his world view. He's a brilliant guy and the Wolfram Language is fantastic, but he really needs to humble himself enough to value the work of convincing others.

XorNot 2y ago
Worth noting this is ultimately the problem with string theory: String theory does provide a suite of mathematical tools which can solve real physics problems and give valid answers but they're known physics problems that can also be solved with other tools. To be useful as a theoretical framework it always needed to be able to predict something which only string theory could - as a "more accurate view of reality". Which is the same problem here: you've got to make a prediction, an accessible prediction, and ideally also not introduce any new incompatibilities.
kridsdale3 2y ago
I honestly don't think he cares about 'mainstream acceptance'. He is a prolific publisher of his detailed thoughts, which in the pre-academic-gatekeeping-establishment era, was enough for any serious philosopher. He's a hobbyist. That doesn't make him any less prestigious if his ideas are neat.
- openrisk 2y ago
  The gatekeeping and manipulation going on in formal scientific publishing is notorious, but that is not the issue here. The fundamental algorithm of advancing physical science has always been: a set of "principles" or proto-concepts, a set of matching mathematical tools (that dont even need to be very rigorous), using these tools to explain a slice of reality (experimental outcomes) and, finally, predicting unknown behaviors that can be sought, can be confirmed (and celebrated). Sometimes even just a purely equivalent mathematical representation is fine, as it may give handles for calculations and thinking. But whatever the program with digi-physics is, it doesnt follow these age-old patterns that establish validity and usefulness intrinsically and not because some gatekeepers say so. The primary utility seems to be to enhance the prestige and toolkit of computational physics, which is fine, but totally not justifying the universality claims.
bumbledraven 2y ago
> But at the end of the day he needs to make a concrete prediction that differs than the current view in order to have people devote a lot of time studying his world view Even if it doesn't make any different concrete predictions, a new way of thinking about things can attract scientists' attention. The Many Worlds interpetation of QM is an example.

XorNot 2y ago

Worth noting this is ultimately the problem with string theory: String theory does provide a suite of mathematical tools which can solve real physics problems and give valid answers but they're known physics problems that can also be solved with other tools. To be useful as a theoretical framework it always needed to be able to predict something which only string theory could - as a "more accurate view of reality". Which is the same problem here: you've got to make a prediction, an accessible prediction, and ideally also not introduce any new incompatibilities.

kridsdale3 2y ago

I honestly don't think he cares about 'mainstream acceptance'. He is a prolific publisher of his detailed thoughts, which in the pre-academic-gatekeeping-establishment era, was enough for any serious philosopher. He's a hobbyist. That doesn't make him any less prestigious if his ideas are neat.

openrisk 2y ago
The gatekeeping and manipulation going on in formal scientific publishing is notorious, but that is not the issue here. The fundamental algorithm of advancing physical science has always been: a set of "principles" or proto-concepts, a set of matching mathematical tools (that dont even need to be very rigorous), using these tools to explain a slice of reality (experimental outcomes) and, finally, predicting unknown behaviors that can be sought, can be confirmed (and celebrated). Sometimes even just a purely equivalent mathematical representation is fine, as it may give handles for calculations and thinking. But whatever the program with digi-physics is, it doesnt follow these age-old patterns that establish validity and usefulness intrinsically and not because some gatekeepers say so. The primary utility seems to be to enhance the prestige and toolkit of computational physics, which is fine, but totally not justifying the universality claims.

bumbledraven 2y ago

> But at the end of the day he needs to make a concrete prediction that differs than the current view in order to have people devote a lot of time studying his world view Even if it doesn't make any different concrete predictions, a new way of thinking about things can attract scientists' attention. The Many Worlds interpetation of QM is an example.